Chapter 9-1 ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA vs. NLRC et. al. G.R. No. 91980 June 27, 1991 NARVASA, J.

FACTS: The controversy at bar had its origin in the "wage distortions" affecting the employees of respondent San Miguel Corporation allegedly caused by Republic Act No. 6727, otherwise known as the Wage Rationalization Act. Upon the effectivity of the Act, the union known as "Ilaw at Buklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM)" said to represent 4,500 employees of San Miguel Corporation, more or less, "working at the various plants, offices, and warehouses located at the National Capital Region" presented to the company a "demand" for correction of the "significant distortion in . . . (the workers') wages." In that "demand," the Union explicitly invoked Section 4 (d) of RA 6727 which reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx (d) . . .Where the application of the increases in the wage rates under this Section results in distortions as defined under existing laws in the wage structure within an establishment and gives rise to a dispute therein, such dispute shall first be settled voluntarily between the parties and in the event of a deadlock, the same shall be finally resolved through compulsory arbitration by the regional branches of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) having jurisdiction over the workplace… The Union claims that demand was ignored. In this connection, the workers involved issued a joint notice reading as follows: SAMA-SAMANG PAHAYAG: KAMING ARAWANG MANGGAGAWA NG POLO BREWERY PAWANG KASAPI NG ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA (IBM) AY NAGKAISANG NAGPASYA NA IPATUPAD MUNA ANG EIGHT HOURS WORK SHIFT PANSAMANTALA HABANG HINDI IPINATUTUPAD NG SMC MANAGEMENT ANG TAMANG WAGE DISTORTION. That decision to observe the "eight hours work shift" was implemented on October 16, 1989 by "some 800 daily-paid workers at the Polo Plant's production line of SMC] joined by others at statistical quality control and warehouse. There ensued thereby a change in the work schedule which had been observed by daily-paid workers at the Polo Plant for the past five (5) years, i.e. "ten (10) hours for the first shift and ten (10) to fourteen (14) hours for the second shift, from Mondays to Fridays . . ; (and on) Saturdays, . . eight (8) hours for both shifts" a work schedule which, SMC says, the workers had "welcomed, and encouraged" because the automatic overtime built into the schedule "gave them a steady source of extra-income," and pursuant to which it (SMC) "planned its production targets and budgets.

This abandonment of the long-standing schedule of work and the reversion to the eight-hour shift apparently caused substantial losses to SMC. It is SMC's submittal that the coordinated reduction by the Union's members of the work time theretofore willingly and consistently observed by them, causing financial losses to the employer in order to compel it to yield to the demand for correction of "wage distortions," is an illegal and "unprotected" activity. ISSUE: Whether or not the strike is illegal? RULING: YES. Among the rights guaranteed to employees by the Labor Code is that of engaging in concerted activities in order to attain their legitimate objectives. The more common of these concerted activities as far as employees are concerned are: strikes- the temporary stoppage of work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. On the other hand, the counterpart activity that management may licitly undertake is the lockout- the temporary refusal to furnish work on account of a labor dispute, Article 263 provides that the "right of legitimate labor organizations to strike and of employer to lockout, consistent with the national interest, shall continue to be recognized and respected." The legality of these activities is usually dependent on the legality of the purposes sought to be attained and the means employed therefor.It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities may be forbidden or restricted by law or contract. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727 prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive procedure for the correction thereof, thereby implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the issue. The provision states that: xxx … the employer and the union shall negotiate to correct the distort-ions. Any dispute arising from wage distortions shall be resolved through the grievance procedure under their collective bargaining agreement and, if it remains unresolved, through voluntary arbitration… Furthermore, Section 16, Chapter I of the implementing rules of said law… declares that, "Any issue involving wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout." Moreover, the worker’s concerted refusal to adhere to the work schedule in force is a slowdown, an inherently illegal activity even in the absence of a no strike clause because while the employees continue to work and remain at their positions and accept their wages, they at the same time select part of the work they care to perform at their own volition or in their own terms.

Chapter 9-2 FIRST CITY INTERLINK TRANSPORTATION vs. MA. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR

1

The union filed another notice of strike alleging ULP. It was not shown in the pleadings that a strike vote was obtained before the declaration of strike. obstructing the free ingress and egress thereto. the petitioner’s general manager. illegal and criminal acts against the employer are deemed to have lost their employment status. on October 16. residence certificate. only the union officers and strikers who engaged in violent. the result thereof was not reported to the MOLE. use of Molotov bombs. several workers were dismissed. Petitioner alleged that no strike vote was obtained. certification of employment. 1990. coercion of employees and violation of workers' rights to self-organization. vs.GRN 106316. 1991. By way of riposte. the police operatives of the Western Police District arrived and 2 . No.). INC. Michael Wilson. the union failed to comply with the required 7-day strike ban. The next day. 1990.R. On the same day. Inc is a public utility while respondent Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Fil Transit-National Federation of Labor is the labor union of Fil Transit employees. On October 31. Article VI of the CBA. Consequently. 272 SCRA 124 (May 5. The union filed a notice of strike with the BLR for ULP against petitioner. the respondent union filed on November 16. At 3:00 p. Meanwhile. J. On September 27. illegal and criminal acts. the petitioner terminated the employment of Kristoffer So. and it complied with the return to work order. The union was in bad faith when it conducted the strike because instead of attending the conciliation meetings with petitioner. effective December 14. the petitioner terminated the employment of eighty-six more employees effective December 14. 1990. It terminated the employment of sixty employees and two officers of the respondent union effective December 6. the officers of the respondent union and some members staged a picket in the premises of the hotel. 153664. The driver's and conductor's/conductress' license is also reasonable to enable them to perform their tasks. The commission of these illegal acts was neither isolated nor accidental but deliberately employed to intimidate and harass the employer and the public. On November 14. none of such employees was refused readmission. Further. GENUINE LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL. The parties failed to reach an agreement so that the union went on strike. petitioner. The strike was attended by pervasive and widespread violence such as the hijacking of Fil-Transit buses. wrote the Secretary of Labor informing him of the petitioner’s decision to retrench seventeen less senior employees to lessen the daily financial losses being incurred by the petitioner. On October 25. The medical examination is justified to ensure that the employees are physically fit to resume the performance of their duties since it has been 2 years from the time of their dismissal. SR. The Secretary of Labor ruled for the legality of the strike and awarded backwages and separation pay to the strikers. and theft of expensive equipment such as fuel injections. the respondent union. The remaining employees were also informed that it will close in six months. The petitioner wrote the SOLE of its decision to implement its retrenchment program to stem its huge losses. high school diploma or transcript of records. massive dismissal of union officers and members. Held: Yes. The pictures are necessary for the employer's personnel records. cutting of electric wirings. Some requirements in the reinstatement of the striking workers were unreasonable considering that the strikers were not being hired for the first time but merely being reinstated.: FACTS: On June 15. informed the DOLE-NCR that the union will conduct a strike vote referendum on October 23 and 24. CALLEJO. Chapter 9-3 [G. Union members who were merely instigated to participate in the illegal strike should be treated differently. The members of the respondent union voted to stage a strike. the respondent union informed the DOLE-NCR of the results of the strike vote referendum. 1990. 1990. 1988 to July 9. But the requirement to submit NBI. respondent. birth/baptismal certificate. 2003] GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL (formerly known as SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL. The MOLE ordered the striking workers to return to work. and marriage contract. The statement in the same order of the Labor Secretary that a notice of strike had been filed because several conciliation conferences failed due to management's consistent refusal to appear is contrary to evidence because management was duly represented during the conciliation proceedings prior to the strike. the strikers engaged in violent.. On November 14. 1990. 1990. 1990. Conciliation conferences were held but the union again went on strike. However. water hoses and fan belts. 1990. 1997) Facts: Petitioner First City Interlink Transportation Co. the respondent union filed a notice of strike. 1990. RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES (GLOWHRAIN). it went on strike. at about 12:00 noon. 1990. Only 66 employees were accepted by petitioner conditioned on the submission of certain requirements. barricading of the terminal in Alabang. In fact. July 18. puncturing of tires. Issue: WON the strike was illegal. the respondent union protested the actions of the petitioner invoking Section 15. The imposition of such requirements did not amount to a refusal to admit workers back or an illegal lock-out so as to entitle them to payment of backwages. Police and Barangay clearances is reasonable to enable management to determine whether the returning employees have pending charges of illegal acts especially those committed during the strike. the SOLE issued another status quo ante bellum order certifying the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and enjoining the parties from engaging in any strike or lockout. These are the P1T cash bond. 1990 another notice of strike because of what it perceived as the petitioner’s continuing unfair labor practices (ULP).m. The respondent union filed an urgent motion for a reconsideration by the SOLE of the Certification Order dated October 31. 1990. On November 7. 1990. the petitioner and the respondent union entered into and signed a third CBA covering the period of July 10. The matter was referred to the NCMB for resolution.. through its president.

1990 illegal for failure of the union to comply with the requirements laid down in Article 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. that the petitioner retrenched employees pending the resolution of the certified cases respecting the alleged illegal suspension and dismissals effected by the petitioner during and prior to the notices of strike filed by the union. On February 1. Police operatives of the Western Police District had to disperse the picketers and take into custody Union President Rogelio Soluta and the other officers of respondent union. Hence. The union proceeded to stage a strike. On November 17. Police officers detained the respondent union’s president Rogelio Soluta. 3 . In this case. 1990. as the notice filed by the union on September 27. Chapter 9-4 Association of Independent Unions in the Philippines vs NLRC 305 SCRA 219 FACTS: In CENAPRO Chemicals Corporation. The CCEA anchored its opposition on the contract bar rule. 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike. the strike staged by them on November 16. the need for a union to adhere to and comply strictly with the procedural conditions sine qua non provided for by the law in staging a strike. the union perpetrated illegal acts. Thereafter. there was no need for the respondent union to comply with Articles 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. resort thereto was simply triggered by the union’s belief in good faith that petitioner was engaged in ULP. the respondent union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on November 16. the Court of appeals reversed the decision and held. minutes of strike vote. The strikers also prevented and coerced other non-striking employees from reporting for work. in the course of which. enjoining the strikers from doing further acts of violence. 1990 were for the same grounds as those contained in their notice of strike on September 27.There was no immediate and imperative need for the respondents to stage a strike on the very day that the notice of strike on November 16. the respondent union nevertheless staged a strike on November 16. 1990. While it may be true that the petitioner itself barred the officers of the respondent union from working and had terminated the employment of Kristoffer So. Because of such illegal activities. and the needed documentation with the DOLE. AIUP filed a petition for certification election. or intimidation and from blocking free ingress and egress to company premises. ISSUE: Was the strike held on November 16. The matters contained in the notice of strike of September 27. It behooved the respondents to avail themselves of the remedies under the CBA or file an illegal dismissal case in the office of the Labor Arbiter against the petitioner or by agreement of the parties. The strikers padlocked the gate of the company. 1990 which complied with the requirements of the law on the cooling-off period. 1990 and on the same day. 1990 was lawful. 1990. The casual employees who have rendered at least one to six years of service sought regularization of their employment. The notice of strike cited as grounds there for the acts of respondent company constituting unfair labor practice.dispersed the picket line. Henry Baybay and Dennis Cosico. the respondent company filed a petition for injunction with the NLRC. The Solicitor General opined that even if the strike was staged without the proper notice and compliance with the cooling-off period. more specifically coercion of employees and systematic union busting. The respondents cannot argue that since the notice of strike on November 16. Hence. However. strike vote and strike vote report. its members and officers The respondents denied the material allegations of the complaint and alleged that the petitioner committed unfair labor practices prior to the filing of the November 16. 1991. Despite the SOLE order. The respondents’ claim of good faith is not a valid excuse to dispense with the procedural steps for a lawful strike. taking into account the observation of the Solicitor General. the same were not valid justifications for the respondents to do away with the statutory procedural requirements for a lawful strike. in violation of the law. which granted a Temporary Restraining Order. staged a picket on the premises of the hotel. 1990 was sufficient compliance with the law. 1990 illegal? RULING: YES. the collective bargaining representative of all rank and file employees was CENAPRO Employees Association (CCEA) with which respondent company had a collective bargaining agreement. which petition was opposed by the respondent company. Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC declared the strike held on November 16. the petitioner sent identical letters to the officers and members of the respondent union terminating their employment. coercion. The union filed a notice of strike. submit the case to the grievance machinery of the CBA so that the matter may be subjected to voluntary arbitrary proceedings instead of resorting to an immediate strike. thus violating Article 264(a) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining the respondent union from intending or staging a strike. the petitioner filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Office of the NLRC for illegal strike against the union. 1990. 1990 notice of strike. they formed themselves into an organization and affiliated with the Association of Independent Unions of the Philippines. 1990 was filed because the retrenchment envisaged by the petitioner had yet to take effect on December 14. 1990 had already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he issued on October 31. The grievances of the respondent union could still very well be ordered and acted upon by the SOLE before December 14. and sent out circulars of its decision to retrench its employees effective December 16. strike ban. The areas fronting the gate of the company were barricaded and blocked by union strikers. Henry Babay and Dennis Cosico. When their demand was denied. Their CBA excluded casual employees from membership in the incumbent union.

After private respondents explained the issues. the Union agreed to allow its members to attend the HDIR seminar for the rank-and-filers. Union officers are duty bound to guide their members to respect the law. a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). or on August 6. Even if the strike is valid because its objective or purpose is lawful. private respondents initiated certain management policies which disrupted the relationship of the parties. covering the period from December 5. The NCMB called a conciliation conference. Worse still. HELD: No. 1988. the NLRC modified its decision. and the declaring the loss of employment status of one petitioner. ISSUE: Whether or not the strike is valid. intimidation of union members and union-busting. the strike may still be declared invalid where the means employed are illegal. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. 1988. picketed the premises of the Philippine Eagle Protectors to show their displeasure on the hiring of the guards. their dismissal from the service is a just penalty or sanction for their unlawful acts. the Union filed on August 25. A few months before the expiration of their CBA. most of the members of the Union refused to report for work. If instead of doing so. deleting the award of backwages. the Union directed its members not to attend the seminars scheduled on said dates. the day after the killing. The other petitioners are all members of the Union. led by petitioners Arquilao Bacolod and Rene Arao. The strike staged by the petitioner union was illegal for the reasons that (1)the strikers committed illegal acts in the course of the strike. In a consolidated decision. a member of the Board of Directors of the Union.: FACTS: Private respondents are sister companies engaged in the production of bananas. 1988. x x”. J.R. the Union. Danilo Martinez. Allegedly. Earlier on. ET AL. there was an existing CBA between the respondent company and CCEA. the officers urge the members to violate the law and defy the duly constituted authorities. The officers’ responsibility is greater than that of the members. The petitioners also appealed the same decision of the Labor Arbiter. the Labor Arbiter declared as illegal the strike staged by the petitioners. The gunman was later identified as Eledio Samson. pertinent portion of which provides: “x x Any union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status. Acting thereupon. by ordering the payment of separation pay in lieu of the reinstatement of the petitioners. NLRC affirmed in toto the Labor Arbiter’s decision. No. The officers who participated in the illegal strike and declared to have lost their employment status. 1988. petitioners cited as their grounds there for unfair labor practice. private respondents notified the NCMB that there were no more bases for the notice of strike. 95494 September 7. They returned to work the following day but they did not comply with the "quota system" adopted by the management to bolster production output. Their dismissal as a consequence of the illegality of the strike staged by them finds support in Art. G. Chapter 9-5 LAPANDAY WORKERS UNION. The petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal lockout against respondent company. ET AL. and dismissed the charge of illegal lockout and unfair labor practice. on August 19 and 20. 264(a) of the Labor Code. Nevertheless. The respondent company appealed the decision insofar as it ordered the reinstatement of some of the strikers. But the said grounds were adjudged as baseless by the Labor Arbiter. An ordinary striking employee can not be terminated by mere participation in an illegal strike. It is undisputed that at the time the petition for certification election was filed by AIUP. an alleged member of the new security forces of private respondents. On the other hand. Respondent company moved for reconsideration of that portion of the NLRC’s decision ordering the reinstatement of the said strikers. 1988. When they filed the notice of strike. It accused the company of unfair labor practices consisting of coercion of employees. 1985 to November 30. (2)And violated the TRO enjoining the union and/or its members from obstructing the company premises and ordering the removal there from of all the barricades. the incumbent bargaining representative of all rank and file employees. 1995. Private respondents charged the Union with economic sabotage through slowdown. vs. 4 .The respondent company filed a complaint for illegal strike. the Union instructed the workers to reduce their production to thirty per cent (30%). Petitioner Union has a collective bargaining agreement with private respondents. The Union is affiliated with the KMU-ANGLO. specifically coercion of employees and systematic union busting. the petitioner union. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during the strike and the striker who participated in the commission of the illegal act must be identified. petitioner Lapanday Workers' Union (Union) is the duly certified bargaining agent of the rank and file employees of private respondents. Issues were discussed during a labor-management meeting held on August 2. With the apparent settlement of their differences. CENAPRO is directed however to reinstate the other workers and CENAPRO is being absolved from the charges of illegal lockout and unfair labor practice. The dismissal of the officers of the striking union was justified and valid. Their agricultural establishments are located in Davao City. On September 9. 248 SCRA 95 PUNO. The petition should not have been entertained because of the contract bar rule.

On January 22. A strike vote was conducted. The NLRC resolution was set aside. VS. Article 263 of the Labor Code. and amelioration bonus to the extent as the latter is required by law. On appeal to the NLRC. 1988 is plainly illegal as it was held within the seven (7) day waiting period provided for by paragraph (f). They cannot claim good faith to exculpate themselves. L-59743. Chapter 9-7 National Federation of Sugar Workers vs. In this case. NFSW filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MOLE) a notice of strike based on non-payment of the 13th month pay. these reinstated workers shall not be entitled to backwages as they should not be compensated for services skipped during the illegal strike. it was declared as illegal by the Labor Arbiter. On October 3. Part of our benign consideration for labor is the policy of reinstating rank-and-file workers who were merely misled in supporting illegal strikes. as amended by E. 1988. Inc. On November 28. INC. 1988. On private respondent’s petition. 1988 was illegal. Six days after. as amended. The haste in holding the strike prevented the Department of Labor and Employment from verifying whether it carried the approval of the majority of the union members. or without the necessary lockout or strike vote first having been obtained and reported to the Ministry. the strike was illegal. to compel the payment of the 13th month pay under PD 851. They admitted knowledge of the law on strike.On September 14. RULING: Yes. 1988. 1984 which provided that the parties agree to maintain the present practice on the grant of Christmas bonus. The employment of the officers and of the members who committed prohibited acts in the course of the strike were declared forfeited. Nonetheless. they committed acts of violence. In every case. in addition to the Christmas. a strike vote was conducted among the members of the Union and those in favor of the strike won overwhelming support from the workers. ISSUES: Whether or not the strike staged on October 12. Two days later. J: FACTS: National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW) has concluded with Central Azucarera de la Carlota (CAC) a CBA effective February 16. 1981 to February 15. The result of the strike vote was then submitted to the NCMB on October 10. 114 SCRA 354 PLANA. that the ruling of the public respondent on the matter is supported by substantial evidence. petitioner filed a notice of strike before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB). Also. NLRC 324 SCRA 242 1 February 2000 FACTS: After the negotiations for the renewal of the collective bargaining agreement between petitioner union and private respondent Moldex Products. agree with the public respondent that the union members who were merely instigated to participate in the illegal strike should be treated differently from their leaders. NFSW struck allegedly. including its procedure. 1982 . 1988. We. milling bonus. 1981. coercion and intimidation during the strike. We affirm the decision of the public respondent limiting the penalty of dismissal only to the leaders of the illegal strike. HELD: Paragraphs (c) and (f) of Article 263 of the Labor Code. Suffice to state. Article 264 of the Labor Code provides in part that no strike shall be conducted without first having filed a notice of strike or without first having filed a notice of strike. or on October 12. especially the officers of the union who served as its major players. Petitioner went on strike. ended in a deadlock. but the results thereof were never submitted to NCMB. May 31. ISSUE: Whether or not the strike staged by petitioner was illegal. the result of the strike vote was not submitted to the NCMB making the strike staged illegal. unfair labor practice and damages. threats. provides: xxx. the case was remanded for the Labor Arbiter for reception of additional evidence. 1988.O. It set to naught an important policy consideration of our law on strike. milling and amelioration bonuses being enjoyed by CAC workers. the union or the employer shall furnish the Ministry the results of the voting at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout subject to the cooling-off period herein provided. NFSW struck. the Union struck. The Christmas and milling bonuses amount to 1 ½ months' salary. We rule that strike conducted by the union on October 12. Private respondents filed separate charges against the Union and its members for illegal strike. Considering this finding. thus this petition. Labor Arbiter Antonio Villanueva ruled that the Onion staged an illegal strike. One day after the commencement of the strike. 1982. Chapter 9-6 SAMAHAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA MOLDEX PRODUCTS. a report of the strike-vote was filed by NFSW 5 . 111. They cannot violate the law which ironically was cast to promote their interest. Ovejera GR No. with prayer for injunction. likewise. we need not exhaustively rule on the legality of the work stoppage conducted by the union and some of their members on September 9 and 23.

for the purpose precisely is to maintain the status quo while the determination is being made. or when as in the instant case the strike-vote report is filed with MOLE after the strike had actually commenced Such interpretation of the law ought not and cannot be countenanced. the workers who contend that their strike is legal can refuse to return to their work and cause a standstill on the company operations while retaining the positions they refuse to discharge or allow the management to fill. the NFSW. Notwithstanding the automatic injunction and an absence of a restraining order. If only the filing of the strike notice and the strike-vote report would be deemed mandatory. illegal. nonimplementation of the CBA provisions and others. Neither can this unseemly arrangement be sustained under the due process clause as the order. Nestle filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. that is. pursuant to Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code. December 19. The Labor Minister Ople issued another return to work order but the officers and members of UFE continued with the strike. the striking workers must cease and/or desist from any and all acts that tend to. Nestle) and later filed a complaint for ULP for violation of the Labor Code on Holiday Pay. to justify their actions. It would indeed be self-defeating for the law to imperatively require the filing on a strike notice and strike-vote report without at the same time making the prescribed waiting periods mandatory. and at the expense of the management. if thus interpreted. Similarly. . Hence. that assumption and certification orders are executory in character and are to be strictly complied with by the parties even during the pendency of any petition questioning their validity. Thus. principally for being violative of BP 130. which is a policy of fairness to both labor and management. by passing the NLRC filed the instant Petition for prohibition. HELD: When the law says "the labor union may strike" should the dispute "remain unsettled until the lapse of the requisite number of days (cooling-off period) from the filing of the notice. the union officers and members who have participated in the said illegal activity. the resolution of which mainly depends on the mandatory or directory character of the cooling-off period and the 7-day strike ban after report to MOLE of the result of a strike-vote. Chapter 9-8 UNION OF FILIPINO EMPLOYEES vs. the strike was declared before the expiration of the 15-day coolingoff period for ULP strikes. Facts: UFE filed a notice of strike with the BLR against Filipro (now. 6 . Moreover." the union shall furnish the MOLE with the results of the voting "at least seven (7) days before the intended strike." It must be stressed that the requirements of cooling-off period and 7-day strike ban must both be complied with. without jeopardizing national interests. once an assumption and/or certification order is issued. as when a strike is declared immediately after a strike notice is served. A strike undertaken despite the issuance by the Secretary of Labor of an assumption or certification order becomes a prohibited activity and thus. the union members staged a strike and continued to man picket lines. INC. citing unfair labor practices on the part of the company. ignore return-to-work orders. GR NO. This is like eating one's cake and having it too. 1990 MEDIALDEA. Labor Arbiter Ovejara declared the strike illegal. Held: No. One other point that must be underscored is that the returnto-work order is issued pending the determination of the legality or illegality of the strike. the purposes for which the filing of the strike notice and strike-vote report is required would not be achieved." the unmistakable implication is that the union may not strike before the lapse of the cooling-off period. CAC filed a petition with the Regional Arbitration Branch of MOLE to declare the strike illegal. ISSUE: Whether or not the strike declared by NFSW is illegal. Regardless therefore of their motives. subject to the (prescribed) cooling-off period. The union officers and members distributed leaflets to employees and passersby advocating a boycott. as a result. but not the waiting periods so specifically and emphatically prescribed by law. we held that: UFE completely misses the underlying principle embodied in Art. they will also claim payment for work not done. the mandatory character of the 7-day strike ban after the report on the strike-vote is manifest in the provision that "in every case. are. and the strike was staged before the lapse of seven days from the submission to MOLE of the result of the strike-vote After the submission of position papers and hearing. The Minister of Labor and Employment Blas Ople assumed jurisdiction over the dispute. deemed to have lost their employment status.with MOLE. as prescribed in the Labor Code. or undermine this authority of the Secretary of Labor. They cannot. 263 (g) on the settlement of labor disputes and this is. 1982. NESTLE PHILIPPINES. Issue: Whether or not the strike is legal. for instance. Otherwise.. On February 26. Such an unfair situation surely was not contemplated by our labor laws and cannot be justified under the social justice policy. This extraordinary authority given to the Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a peaceful and speedy solution to labor disputes. would be plainly oppressive and arbitrary. Worse. UFE assailed the same by filing a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of TRO. or the validity of their claims. . It is not correct to say that it may be enforced only if the strike is legal and may be disregarded if the strike is illegal. J. . on the ground that they are still legally employed although actually engaged in the activities inimical to their employer's interest. although the labor union may take a strike vote and report the same within the statutory cooling-off period. 88710-13.

Liner Inc . vs. On 31 January 1990. . Lakas presented a proposal for a collective bargaining agreement to Bernita and Rodelia Dejero. as well as other "work stoppages/boycotts" staged by Whether or not there was in this case a waiver of the issue on the illegality of the strike by the employer. with the authorization of Lakas. 1997 DAVIDE. J FACTS: the petitioners.R. denied. The two cases were consolidated and simultaneously tried. January 27.. ET AL. in part: This is to request your good office to certify for compulsory arbitration or to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute (strike continuing) between R. as is obvious from the portion of their letter quoted above.B. Inc. LINER. the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s finding. for the holding of a certification election. The dispute or strike was settled when the company and the union entered into an agreement on 19 January 1990 where the private respondents agreed to accept all employees who by then. .. 120482. which sought to declare as illegal the union's 13 December 1989 strike. B. . he certified the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and issued a return-to-work order.) was dismissed on 13 February 1990 after the union and the company reached all agreement on 19 January 1990 providing. which was however. The case certified by the Labor Secretary to the NLRC was dismissed after the union and the company drew up the agreement mentioned earlier. and the Lakas Manggagawa sa Pilipinas . HELD: YES. . By acceding to the peaceful settlement brokered by the NLRC. 1989 even before Certification Election could be held could not be resolved by the NCR Conciliation-Mediation Division after six meetings/conferences between the parties. The current strike by Lakas which started on December 13. among other matters. the parties failed to reach an agreement. R.B.B. entitled In Re: Labor Dispute at RB Liner. Liner buses were "converted" to Sultran Lines. illegal lock out." Lakas filed a notice of strike on 13 November 1989 because of alleged acts of unfair labor practice committed by the private respondents. Reformist and its members moved to reconsider the NLRC decision. . On 13 February 1990. Jr. as this had already been resolved. HEVER DETROS. Despite conciliation hearings held on 4 and 6 December 1989. No. Later. Inc." The petitioners filed with NLRC a case charging the private respondents with unfair labor practice." and another "became SST Liner. Liner." thus on 28 December 1989. but they refused to bargain. hence their letter to the Labor Secretary read. 7 . the Labor Arbiter ruled that the evidence indicated against an illegal lockout while finding that Reformist staged an illegal strike. Secretary Drilon determined that "[t]he ongoing work stoppage in the company . . Meanwhile.Chapter 9-9 REFORMIST UNION OF R. . This conclusively disposed of the strike issue. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION G. petitioned then Secretary Fanklin Drilon of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to assume jurisdiction over the ongoing dispute or certify it to the NLRC." Clearly then. INC. i. had not yet returned to work. The private respondents countered with NLRC Case. for compulsory arbitration has been defined both as "the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is binding on all the parties. On 21 December 1989. the private respondents waived the issue of the illegality of the strike. The very nature of compulsory arbitration makes the settlement binding upon the private respondents. 0542.. eight R. JR." ] and as a mode of arbitration where the parties are "compelled to accept the resolution of their dispute through arbitration by a third party. to go on strike on 13 December 1989 even as conciliation proceedings continued. ISSUE: Petitioner union was organized in May 1989 "by affiliating itself with Lakas Manggagawa sa Pilipinas (hereinafter Lakas). On appeal. much less by the NLRC. as the private respondents themselves sought compulsory arbitration in order to resolve that very issue.. a certification election was held where Lakas won as the collective bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees..e. The private respondents can no longer contest the legality of the strike held by the petitioners on 13 December 1989. . It was the sole issue submitted for compulsory arbitration by the private respondents. the legality of the strike could no longer be reviewed by the Labor Arbiter. In his decision. this petition for certiorari. as admitted by private respondents' witness Arcile Tanjuatco. one "became MCL. Hence. The certified case (NLRC Certified case No. adversely affects an industry indispensable to the national interest. another act of unfair labor practice allegedly committed by the private respondents impelled Reformist.

on petitioner’s motion. the trial court having no jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction. Borbon II. 1990. 5 On November 7. the private respondent filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) a notice of strike on the following grounds: a) bargaining deadlock. their services would be terminated on November 2. San Miguel Cooperation. herein petitioner. 99266 March 2. petitioner filed this petition asserting that respondent Union’s petition should be dismissed for its failure to disclose in its certification of non-forum shopping the pendency of the labor dispute involving both parties and for its failure to file a motion for reconsideration. The said meeting adjourned when Mr. 128632. In addition.: In July 1990. a representative of the union. Thereafter. Philtread entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with Siam Tyre Public Company Limited (Siam Tyre) whereby its plant and equipment would be sold to a new company.Chapter 9-10 MSF Tire and Rubber.” who seeks to enjoin a labor strike. SECOND DIVISION. while others accepted early retirement. the respondent Union filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals. 1990. The trial court denied petitioner’s application for injunction and dismissed the complaint. alleging the need to streamline its operations due to financial loses. petitioner filed a complaint for injunction with damages before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. on the other hand. respondents. Petitioner then asked respondent Union to desist from picketing outside its plant. shut down some of its plants and declared 55 positions as redundant listed as follows: seventeen (17) employees in the Business Logistics Division ("BLD"). Court of Appeals G. FACTS: Respondent Union filed a notice of strike in the National Conciliation and Mediation Board charging Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation (Phildtread) with unfair labor practice. It is therefore not in keeping with the requirements of fairness for petitioner to demand strict application of the prohibition against forumshopping.R. its interests are totally foreign to the context thereof. such as non-compliance with the grievance procedure.R. petitioner. Respondent Union moved to dismiss the complaint alleging lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court. it cannot be considered as an “innocent bystander. the remaining 17 employees could not yet be redeployed. 1990. An “innocent bystander. most of the employees were redeployed. it is 8 . 1999 FACTS: PURISIMA. Hence. Philtread. too. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION. filed a notice of lockout. b) union busting. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is an “innocent bystander”. either party to the dispute and. praying for the redeployment of the said employees to the other divisions of the company. was guilty of the same omission. Hence. however. However. d) failure to provide private respondent with a list of vacant positions pursuant to the parties side agreement that was appended to the 1990 CBA. the trial court reconsidered its order and granted an injunction. vs. vs. they picketed and assembled outside the gate of Philtread’s plant. must satisfy the court that aside from the grounds specified in Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. without any connection whatsoever to. G. while the land on which the plant was located would be sold to another company. As such. Subsequently. Article VIII of the parties' 1990 Collective Bargaining Agreement. August 5. The grievance proceedings were conducted pursuant to Sections 5 and 8. 1990. 60% of which would be owned by Philtread and 40% by Siam Tyre. During the pendency of the labor dispute. Petitioner cannot be said not to have such connection to the dispute. 80% of which would be owned by Siam Tyre and 20% by Philtread. seventeen (17) in the Ayala Operations Center (AOC). HELD: In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals. No. petitioner claimed that its status as an “innocent bystander” entitled it to a writ of injunction. AND SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION (SMCEU) � PTGWO. entirely different from. the Supreme Court found that petitioner’s own certification before the lower court suffered from the same omission for which it faulted the respondent Union. 1999 Mendoza. Chapter 9-11 SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION. when it. As the respondent Union refused petitioner’s request.” The Court therefore ruled that the trial court’s order was a patent nullity. The Appellate Court ruled in favor of respondent Union. In a meeting on October 26. no motion for reconsideration need be filed where the order is null and void. During the grievance proceedings. L. J. petitioner informed private respondent union that if by October 30. Daniel S. declared that there was nothing more to discuss in view of the deadlock. Inc. and eighteen (18) in the Magnolia-Manila Buying Station ("Magnolia-MBS"). J.No. Without filing a motion for reconsideration. 3 Consequently. therefore. the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute and certified it for compulsory arbitration. As a result only 17 employees remained when the parties proceeded to the third level (Step 3) of the grievance procedure. c) gross violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). the private respondent union filed several grievance cases for the said retrenched employees.

in filing complaint with the NLRC. (2) an order compelling the respondent union to submit to grievance and arbitration the issue listed in the notice of strike. On January 12. and (2) unfair labor practice by bargaining in bad faith. there is no ground to sustain the notice of strike of the private respondent union." hence. PAL petitioned the Secretary of Labor Franklin Drilon to immediately assume jurisdiction over the dispute in order 9 . On December 21. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT. is nonexistent in the present case since there is a Board assigned on the third level (Step 3) of the grievance machinery to resolve the conflicting views of the parties. praying for: (1) the dismissal the notice of strike. Abolition of departments or positions in the company is one of the recognized management prerogatives. He assured PAL that the NCMB representatives could not certify the strike vote. On April 16. Violations of the collective bargaining agreements. shall not be considered unfair labor practice and shall not be strikeable. PALEA submitted the strike vote results to the NCMB. For failing to exhaust all the steps in the grievance machinery and arbitration proceedings provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 1989. Petitioner on the other hand. not valid grounds for a lawful strike. So also. These grounds. the grounds relied upon by the private respondent union are nonstrikeable. PALEA accused PAL of bargaining in bad faith and consequently filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) a notice of strike on account of: (1) bargaining deadlock. HELD: Yes. to decide the conflict. filed a notice of strike. Instead of asking the Conciliation Board composed of five representatives each from the company and the union. George Pulido. that the issues raised in the notice of strike were "appropriate only for preventive mediation. 1989. petitioner declared a deadlock. During the conferences of the panel however.The Rules and Regulations Implementing Book V the Labor Code. The issues which may lend substance to the notice of strike filed by the private respondent union are: collective bargaining deadlock and petitioner's alleged violation of the collective bargaining agreement. except flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with its economic provisions. As a result. The next day. The PAL filed with the NCMB a motion to dismiss PALEA's notice of strike for being premature as the issues raised were not strikeable since there still existed a PALPALEA CBA which would not yet expire until September 30. 1989. PAL's counsel was baffled for it was inconsistent with the NCMB order treating the strike notice as preventive mediation. 1989 or with nine (9) more months to run. however. In abandoning the grievance proceedings and stubbornly refusing to avail of the remedies under the CBA. Noteworthy is the fact that the private respondent does not question the validity of the business move of petitioner. PAL's counsel sought clarification from the NCMB. Private respondent violated the mandatory provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. INC. moved to dismiss the notice of strike but the NCMB failed to act on the motion. On January 6. petitioner SMC filed a complaint with the respondent NLRC. arbitration. the PAL/PALEA Payscale Panel was formed in due time and went to work. petitioner prayed that the private respondent union be compelled to proceed with the grievance and arbitration proceedings. (3) the recovery of the expenses of litigation. However.and e) defiance of voluntary arbitration award. appear more illusory than real. and thereafter. we hold that such a violation is chargeable against the private respondent union. the NCMB-NCR Executive Conciliator/Mediator. 1991. or compulsory.The Petition is impressed with merit. DRILON 193 SCRA 223 FACTS: The 1986-1989 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Philippine Airlines (PAL) and the Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) in addition to pay increases also provided for the formation of a PAL/PALEA Payscale Panel. Accordingly. No strike or lockout may be declared on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union disputes or on issues brought to voluntary. advised PALEA president. it is presumed that petitioner San Miguel Corporation acted in good faith. there was no meeting of minds between the parties. In the absence of proof that the act of petitioner was ill-motivated. 1990. vs. Collective Bargaining Deadlock is defined as "the situation between the labor and the management of the company where there is failure in the collective bargaining negotiations resulting in a stalemate" This situation. January 13. Chapter 9-12 PHILIPPINE AIRLINES. FRANKLIN M. Petitioner having evinced its willingness to negotiate the fate of the remaining employees affected. respondent NLRC came out with a minute resolution dismissing the complaint ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT IT IS THE POSITIVE LEGAL DUTY OR RESPONDENT NLRC TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO ENJOIN A STRIKE IN VIOLATION OF A NO STRIKE CLAUSE. when subsequently a representative of NCMB supervised the conduct of PALEA'S strike vote. the notice of strike should have been dismissed by the NLRC and private respondent union ordered to proceed with the grievance and arbitration proceedings As regards the alleged violation of the CBA. provides that a strike or lockout may be declared in cases of bargaining deadlocks and unfair labor practices. In the case under consideration.

and the loss of millions of pesos in unearned revenue for PAL. 1989. 263 of the Labor Code. 263 of the Labor Code. ordering the strikers to lift their pickets and return to work. not the legality or illegality of any strike that may have been resorted to in the meantime. to reinstate officers and members of the union who participated in an illegal strike and to desist from taking any disciplinary or retaliatory action against them? HELD: The Labor Secretary exceeded his jurisdiction when he restrained PAL from taking disciplinary action against its guilty employees. under Art. Secretary Drilon issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute which had already exploded into a full-blown strike. while prohibiting the company from taking retaliatory action against them. ISSUE: Whether or not the Secretary of Labor has authority to order the petitioner Philippine Airlines. Seven (7) days passed with no reaction from Secretary Drilon. Late in the day.to avert the impending strike.M. The prohibition which the Secretary issued to PAL constitutes an unlawful deprivation of property and denial of due process for it prevents PAL from seeking redress for the huge property losses that it suffered as a result of the union's illegal mass action. the Labor Secretary's authority to resolve a labor dispute within 30 days from the date of assumption of jurisdiction. PALEA declared a strike paralyzing PAL's entire operations the next day. directing management to accept all returning employees. encompasses only the issues in the dispute. but not the company's right to take action against union officers who participated in the illegal strike and committed illegal acts. Thus. Inc. by awarding the monetary benefits to the strikers. the Secretary failed to act promptly on PAL's petition for his assumption of jurisdiction.. on January 20. all that the Secretary may enjoin is the holding of the strike. at 7:50 P. for. Inexplicably. Under Art. 10 . resulting in serious inconvenience to thousands of passengers who were stranded in 43 airports throughout the country. and resolving the issues subject of the strike.